CthulhuFhtagn
Banned
Is it possible for Ireland to remain part of the UK with the support of most of the Irish people?
AHC: Ireland Remains a Part of the United Kingdom
- Thread starter CthulhuFhtagn
- Start date
This is really, really tough with a post-1900 POD. If you could butterfly the Great Famine, you would prevent a key part of anti-British sentiment entering Irish folk memory.
Post-1900 though? Don't shoot the leaders of the 1916 Uprising. They were actually regarded as idiots at the time - up until Britain turned them into martyrs. So prison instead. Home Rule? That's the problem. Without partition, that could get nasty, and with partition, that will likely lead to radicals who want to break up the UK coming along at some point. Perhaps some half-arsed federal arrangement, with Munster, Leinster, Ulster, and Connaught being splt up into regional assemblies?
Post-1900 though? Don't shoot the leaders of the 1916 Uprising. They were actually regarded as idiots at the time - up until Britain turned them into martyrs. So prison instead. Home Rule? That's the problem. Without partition, that could get nasty, and with partition, that will likely lead to radicals who want to break up the UK coming along at some point. Perhaps some half-arsed federal arrangement, with Munster, Leinster, Ulster, and Connaught being splt up into regional assemblies?
I think the half assed federalist option is the best one, but I don't think it was ever likely to be a serious proposal.
TFSmith121
Banned
Churchill offered a 10 "state" federal devolution at one point
The heptarchy plus Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, and I think semi-seriously. Make "that" Ireland a four province confederation in its own right, avoid the famine, and provide home rule in the late Nineteenth Century (catholic emancipation earlier than historically would help, as well) and maybe...
Best,
The heptarchy plus Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, and I think semi-seriously. Make "that" Ireland a four province confederation in its own right, avoid the famine, and provide home rule in the late Nineteenth Century (catholic emancipation earlier than historically would help, as well) and maybe...
Best,
Even if you did avoid the reaction of the Rising, there's the mentioned issues with bringing in the Home Rule... Even if you avoid Uster and the rest going at each other long term I think you'd still have movement away post WW2. Would the UK be willing to extend the same level of support/finance to all of Ireland that it did OTL in NI?
Cryhavoc101
Donor
One of my Great Uncles was killed in the Post office in 1916......bloody rebel
Certainly heading off the Germany supported 1916 uprising (no WW1?) and / or less draconian reaction for the local authorities would then result in less of a back lash from the Irish People.
From what I understand the quick trial and execution of the survivors of the O'Connel Street battle caused a backlash.
Another POD could be a more robust or effective Government response to the Curragh Mutiny in 1914 and no delay to the Home Rule Bill.
If you had that, then most likely you'd have some form of violence in Ulster with fallout from that, hard to say how it would play out.
Cause there's plenty on the board that float the idea every so often. As said though, post 1900 is extremely unlikely...
TFSmith121
Banned
Yeah, there's a laundry list going back to the Boyne or before
Yeah, there's a laundry list going back to the Boyne or before. Tragic, really.
Best,
One of my Great Uncles was killed in the Post office in 1916......bloody rebel
Certainly heading off the Germany supported 1916 uprising (no WW1?) and / or less draconian reaction for the local authorities would then result in less of a back lash from the Irish People.
From what I understand the quick trial and execution of the survivors of the O'Connel Street battle caused a backlash.
Another POD could be a more robust or effective Government response to the Curragh Mutiny in 1914 and no delay to the Home Rule Bill.
Yeah, there's a laundry list going back to the Boyne or before. Tragic, really.
Best,
One of the things I say on here most often[1] is "Butterfly away WW1, or at least the UK involvement in it". I don't know if that's doable with a post-1900 POD. My headcanon for this is the UK loses all the Boer Wars, South Africa remains smaller, the Scramble for Africa happens differently, the UK aligns with Germany rather than France prior to WW1, WW1 just becomes another Franco-Prussian War, Ireland becomes a Dominion like Australia and Canada, Russia never becomes Communist, Germany never goes Fascist, WWII never happens, the universe basks in justice. And then I wake up...
With the consent of the Irish people..that's more difficult. If we define "the Irish people" as "Irish land owners and industrialists" then that's easier to obtain and it goes as above. If we define "the Irish people" as "people born in/living in Ireland" then that's more difficult to obtain, with the famines providing longlasting reasons to reject British administration.
So:
- I can get you a Ireland as a Dominion with the consent of the Irish aristocracy with a post-1850 POD
- I can get you a Ireland as part of the UK with the consent of the Irish people with a post-1750 POD
- But I can't get you Ireland as a member of the UK with the consent of the Irish people with a post-1900 POD
SinghKing
Banned
Even if you have the sectarian violence though, it'd still be relatively easy to keep Ireland as part of the UK. Sure, it'd be more of a basket-case ITTL, but it'd still be simple enough. Sectarian violence, and even militant secessionist movements, don't always result in independence, not by any stretch of the imagination. Why should an independent Ireland have been any more inevitable than an independent Sardinia, Iceland or Corsica? Have the IRA become even more violent and militant ITTL, and you'll get a lot of their popular support ebbing away, across the entirety of Ireland in the same way as it did in Ulster IOTL (and if the Irish seccessionists become Nazi collaborators ITTL, that'll be a big blow to their support, just as it was for the Breton nationalists).
Because keeping the entire place under British military rule would necessitate a Conservative/Liberal Unionist Government throughout the twentieth century. And with the Irish Parliamentary Party having its dozens of Westminster MPs, all of them screaming for Home Rule, that isn't likely. Once you get Home Rule, you open the door for separatists.
SinghKing
Banned
But opening the door for separatists isn't the same thing as bringing about seccession, because separatist movements don't always succeed. Seccessionist movements fail all too often, and have frequently have throughout the course of European history. Why should we blindly believe that the Irish separatists were predestined to succeed in achieving Irish independence no matter what?
Cryhavoc101
Donor
There are some that claim that Churchill was ready for the navy to "burn Belfast to the ground" and welcomed an opportunity to effectively destroy the Ulster Volunteers.
I'm not sure of the truth of that but it is somewhat embarrising that a bunch of ex army officers and a relative handfull of "Irish Militia" managed to bully HMG into changing policy so radically and with such tragic results.
Because the Great Divide in Irish politics at the time was Catholic v. Protestant, and hence the Question of the Union - once Home Rule has succeeded, the next point of contention is "have we gone far enough?", which invites three possible answers: yes (the Irish Parliamentary Party), no (Sinn Fein), and it's gone too far already (the Ulster Unionists). The Ulster Unionists are never going to win outside the north-east, and the IPP isn't going to stay in power forever.
Would it be possible that instead of home rule for Ireland which then makes it more likely for the same to occur for Wales and Scotland, that you instead implement greater local governance across the whole of the UK including education, health and culture? This seems like it would be more efficient instead of local->regional->UK, and would satisfy the belief that everyone is treated the same.
The other side of the question is why would Britain want Ireland in the UK? The underlying need for Britain to maintain control of Ireland was the historical threat of French (or at one time Spanish) invasion opening the whole west coast of Britain to invasion. Once the French and British became allies that need evaporated and talk of Home Rule was a way to ditch the problem. A bit like the talk in Britain in the mid 18th century of ditching America as it was a net cost to Britain once the French were removed from North America.